tribe

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “tribe” in English when referring to the “12 tribes of Israel” is translated in some East African languages, including Taita and Pökoot, with the equivalent of “clan” instead.

Aloo Mojola explains (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 208ff. ) (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):

“A number of Bible translation teams in East Africa have been baffled and intrigued by the use of the term ‘tribe’ in the English translations of the Bible. The usage employed in these translations does not reflect any of the popular meanings associated with the term ‘tribe’ in present-day English. Neither does it reflect popular conceptions of the meaning of this term in East Africa or in other parts of Africa and elsewhere. This raises the question: is the term tribe the best translation of the Hebrew terms shebeth and matteh or the Greek term phyle? What is a tribe anyway? Are the twelve tribes of Israel tribes in the sense this term is currently understood? How can this term be translated in East African languages?

“It is easy to see that there is no consistent definition of the term tribe which applies exclusively and consistently to the communities to which it is currently applied. Why, for example, are the Somali or the Baganda called a tribe, but not the Irish or the Italians? Why do the Yoruba or Hausa qualify, but not the Portuguese or the Russians? Why the Bakongo and the Oromo, but not the Germans or the Scots? Why the Eritreans, but not the French or Dutch-speaking Belgians? Why the Zulu or the Xhosa, but not the South African Boers (Afrikaners) or the South African English? The reason for the current prejudices, it would seem, has nothing to do with language, physical type, common territory, common cultural values, type of political and social organization or even population size. Ingrained prejudices and preconceived ideas about so-called “primitive” peoples have everything to do with it.

“The term ‘tribe’ is used to refer to a universal and world-wide phenomenon of ethnic identification which may draw on any of the following bases: identification in terms of one’s first or dominant language of communication (linguistic), in terms of one’s place of origin (regional), in terms of one’s presumed racial, biological or genetic type (racial), or in terms of one’s ideological or political commitments (ideological), and so on. Communities may choose one or more of these bases as criteria for membership. Any of these may change over time. Moreover forms of ethnic identification are dynamic or in a state of flux, changing in response to new environments and circumstances. Essentially forms of ethnic association reflect a people’s struggle for survival through adaptation to changing times. This is inextricably intertwined with the production and distribution of vital resources, goods and services as well as the distribution of power, class and status in society.

“At the base of any ethnic group is the nuclear family which expands to include the extended family. The extended family consists of more than two families related vertically and horizontally: parents and their offspring, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and others, extending to more than two generations. A lineage is usually a larger group than an extended family. It includes a number of such families who trace descent through the male or female line to a common ancestor. A clan may be equivalent to or larger than a lineage. Where it is larger than a lineage, it brings together several lineages which may or may not know the precise nature of their relationships, but which nevertheless claim descent from a common ancestor. A clan is best thought of as a kind of sub-ethnic unit whose members have some unifying symbol such as totem, label, or myth. In most cases the clan is used to determine correct marriage lines, but this is not universally so. Above the clan is the ethnic group, usually referred to inconsistently as the tribe. Members of an ethnic group share feelings of belonging to a common group. The basis of ethnic identity is not always derived from a common descent, real or fictional; it may draw on any of the bases mentioned above.

“The Israelites identified themselves as one people sharing a common descent, a common religious and cultural heritage, a common language and history. There is no doubt that they constitute what would nowadays be called an ethnic group, or by some people a tribe. The twelve subunits of the Israelite ethnic group or tribe, (Hebrew shebeth or matteh, or Greek phyle) are clearly equivalent to clans. In fact this is what seems to make sense to most African Bible translators in the light of their understanding of these terms and the biblical account. Referring to a shebeth as a tribe or an ethnic group and to Israel as a collection of twelve tribes creates unnecessary confusion. Translating each of the terms shebeth, matteh, and phyle as clan seems to solve this problem and to be consistent with current usage in African languages.”

See also family / clan / house.

complete verse (Judges 1:32)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 1:32:

  • Kupsabiny: “That clan of Asher lived in that country together with the Caananites because they did not chase them away.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “So those of the tribe of Asher were living there with the Canaanites.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Therefore these Canaanhon continue to live together-with them.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “So the people of the tribe of Asher lived among them.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Judges 1:32

But (as a rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction) seems too strong at this point. “And so” may be more appropriate. Other possibilities are “Thus” (Revised English Bible) and “So” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: Here there is yet another example of the “bad to worse” scenario so typical of this book. In the preceding verses the Canaanites are said to live among the Israelites, but here the situation is reversed, with the Asherites said to be dwelling among the Canaanites! This way of expressing things could also reflect the fact that the descendants of Asher were very few in number. Whatever the explanation, the storyteller has shifted viewpoints and this tribe seems worse off than the others. The order of presentation highlights the fact that it is the Canaanites, and not the Asherites, who are the inhabitants of the land—the land that was supposedly promised to this tribe of Israel. The long list of cities cited in the previous verse also emphasizes the fact that these people have consistently failed to do what God requested of them. For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1; for inhabitants see verse 1.11. Contemporary English Version‘s translation “and the Asher tribe lived with Canaanites all around them” is particularly effective.

For they did not drive them out is repeated from the beginning of verse 1.31, enclosing this short unit in an inclusio. The Hebrew particle ki rendered for introduces the reason the two peoples are living together, though this particle could also be taken as an emphatic marker, rendered “Indeed.” For did not drive … out, see verse 1.19.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .